DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 31 August 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed with the request for continued examination (RCE) on 31 August 2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10 & 11 have been amended and claims 9 & 12-17 been cancelled. Claim 3 was cancelled in a previous amendment. Thus, claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10 & 11 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “extrusion of a hose body via a stationary first extrusion unit that is not rotating around its longitudinal axis”. It is unclear if the modifier “that is not rotating around its longitudinal axis” is referring to the hose body or the first extrusion unit.
The term “warm” in claim 1 (“…the hose body is still warm…”) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “warm” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
By way of example, it is not clear if “warm” may be seen to encompass any temperature above ambient (whether or not the temperature measurably affects the properties of the hose body) or whether this is intended to require a temperature sufficient to achieve some particular result (e.g., warm enough so that hose body is in a heat softened state, etc.).
Claim 8 recites “wherein the at least one reinforcing element has a higher rigidity than the hose body”. As best understood, this was likely intended to define a characteristic of the final hose. However, as this is not explicitly stated, the limitation is ambiguous. By way of example, this limitation might be interpreted to require the reinforcing element to have a higher rigidity during some intermediate step of the manufacturing process (e.g., during extrusion of the reinforcing element over the warm hose body).
Claim 10 currently recites dependency from claim 9, which has been cancelled. For examination in this action, claim 10 will be interpreted as depending from claim 1, however, appropriate correction and clarification are required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 6 recites “The method for manufacturing a hose according to claim 1 wherein the at least one reinforcing element has at least one strip-like or thread-like helical element”. However, claim 1 already recites “…extrusion of at least one strip-like or thread-like reinforcing element…wherein the reinforcing element is applied in a helical form…”. Thus, claim 1 already defines the at least one reinforcing element as having “at least one strip-like or thread-like” element which is “helical”. As a result, claim 6 is seen to be an improper dependent claim for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 10 recites “The method for manufacturing a hose according to claim 9 wherein the cover layer is an extruded material”, which raises several issues. First, claim 10 refers to claim 9, which has been cancelled. A claim cannot properly depend from a cancelled claim.
For examination in this action, claim 10 will be interpreted as depending from claim 1, however, this presents another issue: claim 1 already recites a step of “application of a cover layer to the hose body….via a third extrusion unit”. As claim 1 already defines the cover layer to be an extruded material (i.e., applied via an extrusion unit), claim 10 is seen to be an improper dependent claim for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10 & 11 (as understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stent (GB 1,349,843; cited in applicant’s 9/12/2022 IDS as “CREATORS LTD”) in view of Swartswelter et al. (US 2,810,424; hereafter Swartswelter) and Bessemer et al. (US 6,488,873; hereafter Bessemer).
Regarding claim 1, Stent discloses (figs. 1-2; alt. embodiment in fig. 3) a method for manufacturing a hose in a continuous process (see below), wherein this continuous process is comprised of the following steps:
extrusion of a hose body (6; see below) via a stationary first extrusion unit (incl. at least first extrusion die 1 & annular die 4) that is not rotating around its longitudinal axis (as shown in fig. 1, the hose body 6 is longitudinally extruded from annular extrusion nozzle 4 which is mounted / fixed within casing 2; see pg. 1, lines 76 – 82),
subsequent extrusion of at least one strip-like or thread-like reinforcing element (19) via a second extrusion unit (incl. at least “second, annular, extrusion die 10”, rings 11, rotating sleeve 14 & rotating nozzle 18) (see pg. 2, lines 5-22), wherein the reinforcing element is applied in a helical form to the hose body (as shown in figs. 1-3; the material extruded from rotating nozzle 18 is deposited around the external face of the hose body as the hose body is extruded longitudinally, resulting in such a helical application; see pg. 2, lines 24-37 & see also pg. 2, lines 38-49: “The speed of rotation of the sleeve 14 relative to the speed of extrusion of the tubular wall 6 through the nozzle 4 determines the pitch of the helix 19. The rate of extrusion…through the aperture 18 is such that the helix will be in contact with the surface of the tubular wall around its entire periphery…”),
wherein the second extrusion unit is arranged behind the first extrusion unit in the discharge direction of the hose (i.e., as shown in fig. 1, the hose body is extruded from nozzle 4 and would be discharged toward the left side of the figure, as the helical reinforcing element is wound thereabout via nozzle 18; thus, the second extrusion unit is “behind” [i.e., after] the first extrusion unit in the discharge direction), and
wherein the second extrusion unit has a stationary extruder and a rotating forming tool having a nozzle or a forming tool having a rotating nozzle (see below).
Regarding the recitation wherein the method is a continuous process, the method disclosed by Stent involves the continuous and simultaneous extrusions of the hose body and reinforcing element, whereby the helical pitch of the reinforcing element is determined by a relationship between the (longitudinal) extrusion speed of the hose body and the rotation speed of the nozzle extruding the reinforcing element, with the extrusion speed of the reinforcing element controlled to ensure that the reinforcing element is placed into contact with the surface of the hose body around the entire periphery, and is preferably under slight tension (pg. 2, lines 38-49; see also pg. 1, lines 35-49 & pg. 2, lines 24-33). Thus, the recited steps are reasonably seen as taking place in a continuous process, rather than being performed in separate / discrete operations.
Regarding the limitation wherein the hose body has an actual inner diameter which, in the longitudinal direction of the hose body, exhibits fluctuations in relation to a target inner diameter which are less than 5%, a hose body produced by the apparatus and methods disclosed by Stent would have an inner diameter which, as understood, may be a “target inner diameter”. In particular, the inner diameter of the hose body would be, at least initially, determined by the geometry of the nozzle 4 which extrudes the hose body (as shown in fig. 1). Stent also mentions (but does not require) that sizing operations may be performed after the hose body and reinforcing elements are extruded (pg. 2, lines 53-57).
When read as a whole, Stent does not explicitly disclose or require the actual inner diameter of the flexible hose body to exhibit any fluctuations in the longitudinal direction of the hose body in relation to the target inner diameter, and the corresponding drawings are reasonably be seen as depicting a constant inner diameter, whereby a person of ordinary skill in the art may have reasonably concluded or otherwise readily inferred that that the actual inner diameter is intended to exhibit fluctuations in relation to the target diameter which are at or near 0%, which falls within the claimed range of “less than 5%”.
It is noted that applicant’s specification explains that hoses produced by various methods may exhibit certain fluctuations of the actual inner diameter relative to the target inner diameter according to the method of production.
In particular, applicant’s specification explains that hoses formed from coiled strips of material are coiled with an overlap, which “causes the inner wall of the hose body to be uneven” (pg. 2, lines 8-11), and, by contrast, extruded hoses may have “smooth” inner walls (pg. 3, lines 20-22).
Applicant’s specification further explains that an extruded hose may be a “linearly extruded hose” or “a rotating extruded hose” (pg. 3, lines 14-18), and suggests that “a particularly smooth inner wall of the hose body is achieved in particular when the extruded hose is a linearly extruded hose” (pg. 3, lines 26-27).
Applicant’s specification explains that hoses of coiled strips of material have “bumps” that “occur at regular intervals and at short wavelengths at the connecting seams” (pg. 4, lines 8-9) and “[e]ven in the case of rotating extruded hoses, short-wave unevenness can be seen in the hose wall” (pg. 4, lines 10-11).
By contrast, the specification explains “In the case of extruded hoses, which are only discharged linearly without rotating the extruded hose, the fluctuations in the target inner diameter only occur as long-wave and generally irregular fluctuations” (pg. 4, lines 11-14). See also pg. 4, lines 16-23; pg. 9, line 33 – pg. 10, line 7.
It is also noted that while applicant’s specification suggests that the extruded inner hose “preferably” exhibits fluctuations in relation to the target diameter which are less than 5%, the specification does not necessarily set forth any particular techniques to achieve such a degree of fluctuations, except for the aforementioned use of extrusion and, in particular, linear extrusion.
In view of the above, as best understood, these “fluctuations” of the actual inner diameter in the longitudinal direction relative to the target inner diameter are unintentional byproducts / defects resulting from the method of making the hose body, wherein coiled material hose bodies exhibit uneven inner walls with regular and short-wave fluctuations, rotating extruded hoses may have generally smooth walls but which may exhibit short-wave unevenness, and linearly extruded hoses may have “particularly smooth walls” with fluctuations which “only occur as long-wave and generally irregular fluctuations”.
In other words, the existence and nature of these fluctuations, as best understood, is a distinctive structural characteristic in the final product resulting from the method of making.
Since the method disclosed by Stent includes the manufacture of a hose body by linear extrusion of the hose body (i.e., without rotation of the hose body, as described above) and as applicant’s specification reasonably appears to suggest that hoses made by such a process exhibit “a particularly smooth inner wall” and “fluctuations in the target inner diameter [which] only occur as long-wave and generally irregular fluctuations” (i.e., as a distinctive structural characteristic resulting from the production method), and as Stent does not otherwise disclose fluctuations of the actual inner diameter relative to a target inner diameter (i.e., reasonably suggesting a desired constant inner diameter and/or fluctuations which are at or near 0%), the hose of Stent is seen as reading on or otherwise rendering obvious the additional limitation wherein the flexible hose body has an actual inner diameter which, in the longitudinal direction of the hose body, exhibits fluctuations in relation to a target inner diameter which are less than 5%. See also MPEP § 2112 & MPEP § 2112.02(I).
Regarding the limitation wherein the second extrusion unit has a stationary extruder and a rotating forming tool having a nozzle or a forming tool having a rotating nozzle, the device of Stent may be seen as reading on (or rendering obvious) this limitation in several ways.
To promote compact prosecution, two alternative possible interpretations of the prior art are detailed below: a first in view of Stent alone, and a second (detailed later) in view of Stent and Swartswelter.
In a first interpretation, the stationary extruder of the second extrusion unit may comprise at least rings 11 and the chamber 13 formed therebetween which, as shown in figs. 1 & 2, are stationary and rigidly fixed to casing 2 via bolts / screws 12. On the left side of fig. 2, an inlet / attachment for a supply of the molten “rigid” PVC for making the reinforcing elements is shown and is reasonably understood to be stationary as well.
The second extrusion unit of Stent also comprises a rotating sleeve 14 having a nozzle 18 which, in this interpretation, is reasonably seen as reading on at least “a rotating forming tool having a nozzle”.
Thus, the second extrusion unit has a stationary extruder (incl. rings 11 & chamber 13) and a rotating forming tool (14) having a nozzle (18).
Stent does not explicitly disclose the limitations wherein the continuous process further comprises, after extrusion of the hose body, subsequent cooling of the hose body in a water bath to the effect that the hose body is still warm; and, after extrusion of the reinforcing element, subsequent application of a cover layer to the hose body with the reinforcing element via a third extrusion unit, wherein the cover layer is provided on the external face of the hose body and covers the hose body and the at least one reinforcing element at least in portions, wherein the third extrusion unit is arranged behind the second extrusion unit in the discharge direction of the hose, wherein the third extrusion unit comprises a hose nozzle.
Swartswelter teaches (figs. 1-4) a method for manufacturing a hose (i.e., various embodiments in figs. 5-7) in a continuous process (i.e., see published claims 1 & 5: “The method of making thermoplastic tubing which includes the steps of continuously extruding heated thermoplastic material to provide an inner tubular member, continuously forming a wrapping on said inner tubular member…, and continuously extruding heated thermoplastic material around said wrapped inner member to provide an outer tubular member…”), wherein this continuous process is comprised of the following steps:
extrusion of a hose body (t1; see 40 in fig. 6) via a stationary first extrusion unit (10)(col. 1, line 66 – col. 2, line 2),
subsequent cooling of the hose body in a conditioner (17) (col. 2, lines 28-31; see below)
subsequent application of at least one strip-like or thread-like reinforcing element (W, incl. 25, 26; see 41 in fig. 6) via a second [braiding] unit (19), wherein the reinforcing element is applied in a helical form to the hose body (col. 2, lines 32-49), and
subsequent application of a cover layer (t2; see 42 in fig. 6) to the hose body with the reinforcing element via a third extrusion unit (30),
wherein the cover layer is provided on the external face of the hose body and covers the hose body and the at least one reinforcing element at least in portions (see figs. 6 & 7),
wherein the second [braiding] unit is arranged behind the first extrusion unit in the discharge direction of the hose (see fig. 1),
wherein the third extrusion unit (30) is arranged behind the second [braiding] unit in the discharge direction of the hose (see fig. 1), wherein the third extrusion unit comprises a hose nozzle (i.e., the nozzle of the extruder is configured to form an annular hose extrusion; see col. 3: “In this extruder, the hopper 31 supplies material to the screw 32 (Figure 2) which extrudes a tubular layer of heated plastic around the previously formed inner tube t1 as the previously formed tube t1 with a wrapping or reinforcement W thereon passes through the die orifice of the extruder“).
Regarding the second interpretation mentioned earlier of limitation wherein the second extrusion unit has a stationary extruder and a rotating forming tool having a nozzle or a forming tool having a rotating nozzle, Swartswelter teaches that an extruder for extruding over another layer (e.g., 30, for the cover layer) may be a stationary extruder (see figs. 1 & 2) comprising a hopper (31) which supplies material to a screw (32) for extruding plastic through a die orifice and onto the hose (col. 3, lines 3-14).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have readily understood that, although not shown in Stent, some form of continuous extruder such as a cross-head screw extruder would be provided upstream from the inlet to chamber 13 of the second extrusion unit (i.e., providing the “PVC RIGID” in fig. 2), and such an extruder would also reasonably be understood and/or expected to be “stationary” in this context (i.e., the screw therein would rotate, as required for operation, but the housing/casing of the drive would be stationary).
In other words, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Stent such that the second extrusion unit includes a cross-head screw extruder connected to the inlet of chamber 13, in view of the teachings of Swartswelter, to provide a drive means for pressurizing and driving the molten plastic through the subsequent components, as is otherwise well-known and conventional in the art.
If not already seen as such, it would have been further obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide such a screw extruder as a stationary extruder since such an extruder would be providing molten plastic to the stationary inlet depicted in fig. 2 and thus to the stationary chamber 13 of the second extrusion unit, and providing a stationary extruder to connect to a stationary chamber inlet is a well-known and conventional arrangement (and otherwise is the simplest and most logical solution in these circumstances).
When configured as above, the method of Stent may be seen as reading on the limitation wherein the second extrusion unit has a stationary extruder (i.e., the cross-head screw extruder) and a forming tool (incl. rings 11 & chamber 13 therein) having a rotating nozzle (i.e., nozzle 18 on rotating sleeve 14).
Returning to the other limitations not explicitly disclosed by Stent, Swartswelter further explains that, by using an inner layer (hose body), reinforcement (reinforcing element), and outer layer (cover layer), a high strength, corrosion and chemical resistant hose can be provided at a reasonable cost, as the reinforcement enables the use of thinner walls, the inner layer can be a chemical-resistant plastic for contact with the conveyed fluid, while the outer layer, which bonds to the inner layer through the reinforcement, can be a material which is resistant to the surrounding environment (col. 1, lines 29-49; col. 3, line 72 – col. 4, line 10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Stent such that the continuous process further comprises, after extrusion of the reinforcing element, subsequent application of a cover layer to the hose body with the reinforcing element via a third extrusion unit, wherein the cover layer is provided on the external face of the hose body and covers the hose body and the at least one reinforcing element at least in portions, wherein the third extrusion unit is arranged behind the second extrusion unit [i.e., the reinforcing element application unit] in the discharge direction of the hose, wherein the third extrusion unit comprises a hose nozzle, in view of the teachings of Swartswelter, as the use of a known technique (i.e., forming a hose with such an extruded cover layer on the external face of a hose body covering the hose body and a helical reinforcing element wound thereon via an extrusion unit arranged after the unit which applies the reinforcing element, as in Swartswelter) to improve a similar method (i.e., the hose manufacturing method of Stent) in the same way (e.g., to provide a protective covering for the helical reinforcing element and/or to provide a smooth outer surface of the resulting hose, thus making the hose easier to clean/sanitize, and/or reducing the chances of the hose ‘catching’ on something as compared to a hose with an exposed helical reinforcement; and which otherwise may help secure the reinforcing element to the hose body).
Such a modification would have otherwise been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as a combination of known prior art elements (i.e., the method steps of continuously extruding the hose body and reinforcing elements of Stent, with the method step of extruding a cover layer for covering a hose body and reinforcing element of Swartswelter) according to known methods (i.e., Swartswelter teaches how such a cover layer may be extruded over a hose body and reinforcing element) to obtain predictable results (e.g., as above, providing a smooth outer hose surface, which may be desirable in some applications and otherwise makes the hose easier to clean/sanitize; and/or to provide external protection for the reinforcing element which would otherwise be exposed during use, etc.).
Regarding the limitation wherein the continuous process further comprises, after extrusion of the hose body, subsequent cooling of the hose body in a water bath to the effect that the hose body is still warm, Swartswelter teaches that the reinforcement can be applied to the hose body at different stages of the manufacturing process, depending on the intended result. The apparatus for performing the method may include means to apply the reinforcing element either before or after the conditioner (i.e., 14 vs 19). Ordinarily, only one of the two will be used, though the arrangement provides flexibility to use both if desired (col. 2, lines 50-61).
Applying the reinforcement to the hose body before it has been cooled (via 14) enables the reinforcement to at least partially embed into the outer wall of the hose body (which may be controlled by adjusting the tension of the winding)(col. 2, lines 6-27 & lines 61-63).
By contrast, the reinforcement can be applied to the hose body (via 19) after the hose body has been completely cooled, wherein the reinforcement would embed “only slightly, if at all”, whereby the wrapping can serve to pre-stress the hose body (col. 2, lines 63-68).
Between these two extremes, Swartswelter also discloses the provision of heaters (23, 24, 27) configured to heat the hose body and the reinforcing elements prior to joining, to enable the reinforcing elements to more readily embed and/or bond with the material of the hose body. By varying the heat, the degree of embedding of the reinforcement layer can be controlled “to substantially any desired degree (col. 2, line 70 – col. 3, line 2).
Thus, Swartswelter reasonably teaches that the temperature of the hose body affects the degree to which the reinforcing element will embed and/or bond when applied with tension, wherein a higher temperature (softer hose body) will generally permit a greater degree of embedding, while a lower temperature (harder hose body) will generally reduce (or prevent) embedding, which can enable the winding tension to pre-stress the hose body; whereby, to control the temperature (and thus hardness) of the hose body after extrusion (and before application of the reinforcing element), a subsequent step of cooling the hose body (via a conditioner) may be performed (i.e., to harden / solidify the hose body) and, if desired, a further warming of the hose body may be performed (via heaters).
Swartswelter does not explicitly teach the conditioner to be a water bath, wherein the step of cooling of the hose body in the water bath is to the effect that the hose body is still warm, however, as set forth in MPEP § 2141.03(I): "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
The "hypothetical ‘person having ordinary skill in the art’ to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art." Ex parte Hiyamizu, 10 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988).
Bessemer teaches (e.g., fig. 1) a method for manufacturing a hose in a continuous process wherein a hose body (15) is produced by an extrusion unit (19) and is subsequently cooled in cooling chamber (24; which may be a water bath; see below) to the effect that the hose body is at a desired target temperature (e.g., warm) prior to subsequent temperature-dependent processing steps (i.e., cutting via blade 30).
Regarding the term “water bath”, Bessemer teaches that the cooling chamber may use water as a heat transfer fluid (col. 4, lines 3-4; col. 5, lines 42-44) and that the hose body passes through the cooling chamber (see fig. 1). Bessemer also explains that the cooling chamber “can simply be partially, or completely, filled with heat transfer fluid” (col. 5, lines 44-56). Thus, when the cooling chamber of is provided as a chamber partially or completely filled with water, the resulting chamber is reasonably seen as “a water bath”.
Examination Note: in general, as admitted in applicant’s specification, cooling an extruded hose body in a water bath is a known technique (see applicant’s specification pg. 11, lines 11-12: “The hose body 12 is then cooled in a known manner using a water bath”). Even without applicant’s admission, it is otherwise well-known in the art to cool an extruded hose body in a water bath after extrusion, e.g., to solidify the hose body after a sizing operation (see US 3,546,745 to Ball, US 3,821,349 to Mozer, US 4,029,452 to Schippers et al., etc.).
In use, Bessemer explains that extruded material of the hose body should first be stabilized by cooling until a sufficiently rigid state to support its shape (col. 3, lines 57-62).
Thereafter, Bessemer teaches that, by controlling / regulating the water temperature of the water bath (i.e. the cooling chamber), the water bath can be used to bring the extruded hose body to a desired temperature and maintain it at that temperature (col. 4, lines 3-6; see also col. 4, lines 7-30). In one example, Bessemer suggests that a pump (39) can circulate “warm or cool heat transfer fluid” to achieve the desired temperature, with a regulator (36) and heat transfer unit (42) capable of heating and cooling the fluid, respectively (col. 5, lines 32-44).
Bessemer explains that it is desirable to control the temperature of the extruded hose body to be within a certain range of desired temperatures for subsequent processing. In the context of cutting the hose, keeping the temperature within the desired range results in the most efficient cutting process. By contrast, if the temperature is too high, the cut ends will tend to stick together after cutting (i.e., the hose body is too soft); if the temperature is too low, the hose body may fracture or deform upon cutting (i.e., the hose body is too hard)(col. 4, lines 31-56).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Stent such that the continuous process further comprises, after extrusion of the hose body, subsequent cooling of the hose body in a water bath to the effect that the hose body is still warm, in view of the combined teachings of Swartswelter and Bessemer, to enable the temperature of the hose body to be lowered to a regulated target temperature which is low enough to solidify the hose sufficiently to prevent, reduce, or otherwise control (in combination with control of the winding tension) the degree to which the reinforcing element will be embedded in the hose body surface, and yet is warm enough to enable the hose body to form the desired heat bond with the extruded reinforcing element (as in Stent), without necessarily requiring a separate hose body heater downstream from the water bath (i.e., regulating the hose body temperature to a warm temperature in the water bath, as in Bessemer, may be seen as a simplified single-step version the process of cooling and then re-heating as taught in Swartswelter).
As a result, all of the limitations of claim 1 are met, or are otherwise rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 2, method of Stent reads on the additional limitation wherein an inner wall of the hose body is smooth.
In particular, the inner wall of the hose body (6) of Stent is reasonably depicted as smooth in the figures and Stent does not otherwise disclose or require any intentional texturing or unevenness of the inner wall. Further, the hose body of Stent is made by linear extrusion which, as admitted in applicant’s specification, is a method which achieves “a particularly smooth inner wall” (pg. 3, lines 26-27). See related discussion for the rejection of claim 1, above.
It is also noted that, in each of the embodiments taught by Swartswelter (figs. 5-7), the inner wall of the hose body (i.e., 37,40, 44, respectively) is shown to be smooth.
Regarding claims 4 & 5, the method of Stent is seen as reading on or otherwise rendering obvious the additional limitations wherein an inner wall of the hose body has a corrugation of an irregular wavelength and/or having a long-wave wave in the longitudinal direction of the hose (claim 4), and wherein an inner wall of the hose body has a corrugation having elevations and indentations in the longitudinal direction of the hose, wherein the distance between two adjacent indentations of the hose is greater than the pitch of two coils of the reinforcing element (claim 5).
As explained in the grounds of rejection for claim 1, while Stent does not explicitly disclose any corrugations or fluctuations on the inner wall of the hose body, applicant’s specification admits that hoses produced by various methods may exhibit certain fluctuations of the inner diameter relative to the target inner diameter according to the method of production.
In particular, applicant’s specification discloses that: “In the case of extruded hoses, which are only discharged linearly without rotating the extruded hose, the fluctuations in the target inner diameter only occur as long-wave and generally irregular fluctuations” (pg. 4, lines 11-14).
Thus, the hose produced by the method of Stent, having a hose body which has been linearly extruded, is therefore seen as reading on the additional limitations of claim 4 wherein an inner wall of the hose body has a corrugation of an irregular wavelength and/or having a long-wave wave in the longitudinal direction of the hose.
With respect to the claim 5 limitations wherein “an inner wall of the hose body has a corrugation having elevations and indentations in the longitudinal direction of the hose, wherein the distance between two adjacent indentations of the hose is greater than the pitch of two coils of the reinforcing element”, applicant’s specification explains that “In the field of hoses…short wavelengths are in the range of the diameter of the hose, while long wavelengths exhibit lengths that are many times the diameter of the hose, namely at least 5 times, in particular up to 10 times, sometimes even up to 100 times” (pg. 4, lines 16-19), whereby “for linearly extruded hoses, the wavelengths of the fluctuations are more than 20 cm, typically more than 50 cm, sometimes even more than 1m” (pg. 4, lines 21-23).
Applicant’s specification admits that “the distance between adjacent indentations is very large in an extruded hose that has only been discharged linearly without rotation of the extruded hose…. In the case of linearly extruded hoses, significantly more than five coils can be applied between two adjacent indentations. It is not uncommon to place more than 50 coils between two adjacent indentations” (pg. 4, line 31 – pg. 5, line 7).
It is also noted that the figures of Stent reasonably depict a configuration wherein the reinforcing element is coiled at a pitch less than the diameter, whereby several coils of the reinforcing material are present over a given pipe length equivalent to one diameter (e.g., approximately 3 to 5 as shown in figs 1 & 3, though the precise number is not necessarily critical in this case).
As applicant’s specification has admitted that fluctuations (i.e., corrugations) on the inner wall of a linearly extruded hose “only occur as long-wave” fluctuations, wherein the term “long-wave” is subsequently defined as “at least 5 times” the diameter of the hose, the resulting inner wall of the linearly extruded hose body of Stent would reasonably be expected to have a corrugation having elevations and indentations in the longitudinal direction of the hose, wherein the distance between two adjacent indentations of the hose is greater than the pitch of two coils of the reinforcing element. To further illustrate, for a pitch of 3-5 coils per diameter of length (as reasonably shown by Stent), even at the smallest “long-wave” wavelength of “at least 5 times” the diameter (admitted as characteristic of linearly extruded hoses), the resulting distance between adjacent indentations would be greater than the pitch of at least 15 to 25 coils in the hose of Stent, clearly falling within the open-ended range of “greater than the pitch of two coils of the reinforcing element” as claimed.
See also MPEP § 2112 and MPEP § 2112.02(I).
As a result, the limitations of claims 4 & 5 are met, or are otherwise rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Stent discloses the additional limitation wherein the at least one reinforcing element (19) has at least one strip-like or thread-like helical element (i.e., one such strip-like helical element shown forming 19 in figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 7, Stent discloses the additional limitation wherein the at least one reinforcing element (19) has at least two helical elements that are arranged at a distance from one another and are each helically attached to the external face of the hose body (not shown).
See pg. 2, lines 61-65: “the sleeve 14 may be provided with more than one aperture 18 so that two or more reinforcing helices of the harder plastics material may be wound around the tubular wall 6”.
Thus, Stent explicitly discloses that the reinforcing element may have at least two helical elements which are each helically attached to the external face of the hose body.
Regarding the limitation wherein the two helical elements are arranged “at a distance from one another”, based on the method of production disclosed, the at least two helical elements would be spaced from one another at a distance dependent at least on the distance between the respective apertures 18 in the sleeve 14 which extrude such elements.
Regarding claim 8, Stent discloses the additional limitation wherein the at least one reinforcing element has a higher rigidity than the hose body.
See, e.g., “an extruded seamless tubular wall of a first plastics material having wound around…its external surface at least one reinforcing helix od a second plastics material which is harder than the first plastics material” (pg. 1, lines 12-20), “reference herein and in the claims to the second plastics material being harder than the first plastics material is intended to mean that the second plastics material is harder or more rigid than the first plastics material when both plastics materials are in their solidified states” (pg. 1, lines 25-34).
See also pg. 1, lines 80-82; pg. 2, lines 5-8; published claims 1 & 3, etc.
Examination note: applicant’s specification suggests that providing the at least one reinforcing material with higher rigidity than the hose body can be achieved by adjusting the number of coils per length of hose, or by selecting a suitable material, or by selecting the size and cross-sectional shape of the reinforcing element (pg. 6, lines 4-10). In the case of Stent, Stent explicitly discloses that the material of the reinforcing element is selected to be harder or more rigid than the material of the hose body, so the reinforcing element is seen as having a higher rigidity than the hose body at least due to the selection of a material with a suitably higher rigidity. Additionally, the number of coils and cross-section size and shape of the reinforcing element as depicted in the figures may also reasonably suggest to one skilled in the art that the reinforcing element is intended to have a higher rigidity than the hose body.
Regarding claim 10, the method of Stent, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein the cover layer is an extruded material.
As previously discussed for claim 1, Swartswelter teaches that the material for forming the cover layer (t2) may be extruded over the hose body (t1) and reinforcing element (W) via an extruder (30).
Regarding claim 11, Stent discloses the additional limitations wherein at least the hose body and the reinforcing element are each made of a thermoplastic material (i.e., PVC).
In particular, Stent discloses that the hose body may be “a soft grade of PVC” (pg. 1, lines 80-82) and the reinforcing element may be “a rigid grade of PVC” (pg. 2, lines 5-9). See also published claim 3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 31 August 2025 have been fully considered, however, applicant’s amendments have substantially changed the scope of the claims, including changing the statutory category of independent claim 1 from a product (i.e., a hose) to a method (i.e., a method for manufacturing a hose). New grounds of rejection have been applied to the amended claims in this action, as necessitated by applicant’s substantial amendments. The following responses are provided to promote compact prosecution where applicant’s arguments may remain relevant to one or more of the references used in the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant argues, with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), that “a person with ordinary skill in this area would be easily able to work with a water bath in this context and figure out what is meant as to applying the reinforcement element after some cooling so that deformation is not as strong”. This argument is not found to be persuasive. While terms of degree are not necessarily indefinite, when such a term is used in the claim, the specification must provide some standard for measuring the required degree or, through specific examples or teachings, show that the required degree can be ascertained even without precise numerical measurements [see MPEP § 2173.05(b)(I)]. In this case, however, instant claim 1 uses the term “warm”, but does not define the required degree. It is unclear, for example, if this must be measured relative to ambient temperature (whether or not it has any effect on the hose body itself; i.e., at least some amount warmer, 1° C, etc.) or whether this must be sufficiently warm to achieve some unspecified functional result (e.g., to ensure the hose body is still in a measurably heat-softened state, etc.). Without such clarity, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably determine the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Applicant’s remarks use language which does not appear in the claim (e.g., “after some cooling” and “deformation is not as strong”) but, even here, there is significant uncertainty as to the required degree of cooling and/or as to the required reduction in deformation.
Turning to the arguments regarding the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, as a general point in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding applicant’s remarks directed to Stent, it is first noted that the reference in the previous action to the introduction of pressurized air as disclosed by Stent was not relied upon in isolation to render obvious the use of a water bath, and such an argument amounts to improper piecemeal analysis as noted above.
In context, the previous grounds of rejection noted that Stent, when disclosing the step of applying the reinforcing element to the surface of the hose body, proposed that “air under pressure may be introduced into the interior of the tubular wall 6…to prevent collapse of the tubular wall 6”. Thus, Stent reasonably recognized that the step of applying the extruded reinforcing element to the outer surface of a not-yet-completely-cooled hose body may create conditions which might tend to collapse the tubular wall and otherwise suggests to those skilled in the art that steps may be taken to prevent such collapse. The previous claim 1 was a product claim and this rationale was provided in the context of a product-by-process limitation analysis to show that the product made by the prior art methods, even without explicit use of a water bath, appeared to be the same or similar to the claimed product, especially as applicant’s specification had only set forth the use of a water bath as “preferable” rather than a required feature of applicant’s invention and, by extension, not necessarily critical to achieving fluctuations of the inner diameter within the claimed range.
As amended claim 1 is now directed to a method rather than a product, different analysis is required, which is reflected in the new grounds of rejection in this action.
Applicant also argues that “the compressed air in Stent is not…applied after the first extrusion and is applied before the first extrusion”. This argument is not found to be persuasive. As can be seen in fig. 1 of Stent, while the compressed air is provided by a line (7, 8) upstream of the extrusion die, the air is not introduced into the hose until the hose body (6) exits from the extrusion die. Before this, the extrudate pathway and the air pathway are merely parallel, but separated by parts of the extrusion unit.
Applicant argues that “Bessemer only describes the use of a cooling chamber to stabilize an extrudate before carrying out further processes…. However, Bessemer does not disclose a water bath or the use of a water bath between two successive extrusion operations”. This argument is not found to be persuasive for several reasons.
First, as set forth in the relevant grounds of rejection, while Bessemer does not use the term “water bath”, Bessemer teaches the use of a cooling chamber for cooling an extruded hose, wherein the hose body passes through the cooling chamber in use (see fig. 1), and wherein the cooling chamber may use water as a heat transfer fluid (col. 4, lines 3-4). Bessemer also explains that the cooling chamber “can simply be partially, or completely, filled with heat transfer fluid” (col. 5, lines 44-56). Thus, when the cooling chamber of is provided as a chamber partially or completely filled with water, the resulting chamber is reasonably seen as “a water bath”.
Moreover, while Bessemer does not disclose a subsequent extrusion operation after the cooling, Bessemer was not relied upon to teach subsequent extrusion operations and such an argument otherwise amounts to improper piecemeal analysis as noted above.
To promote compact prosecution, it is noted that the new grounds of rejection provided in this action incorporate additional teachings of a reference (US 2,810,424 to Swartswelter et al.) which discloses a conditioning / cooling step following a first extrusion step and before a step of applying reinforcement and/or extruding a cover layer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the attached PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard K Durden whose telephone number is (571) 270-0538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone: Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881; Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. The fa